Adventures among Books

A >> Andrew Lang >> Adventures among Books


All naked as he was he cut the stag's throat in the usual manner, and
gralloched him with all the skill of Bucklaw. This was very well, and
very well it would be to add a description of the stag at bay; but as I
never happened to see a stag at bay, I omit all that. Dick had achieved
success, but his clothes were on one side of a roaring river in spate,
and he and the dead stag were on the other. There was no chance of
fording the stream, and there was then no bridge. He did not care to
swim back, for the excitement was out of him. He was trembling with
cold, and afraid of cramp. "A mother-naked man," in a wilderness, with a
flood between him and his raiment, was in a pitiable position. It did
not occur to him to flay the stag, and dress in the hide, and, indeed, he
would have been frozen before he could have accomplished that task. So
he reconnoitred.

There was nobody within sight but one girl, who was herding cows. Now
for a naked man, with a knife, and bedabbled with blood, to address a
young woman on a lonely moor is a delicate business. The chances were
that the girl would flee like a startled fawn, and leave Dick to walk,
just as he was, to the nearest farmhouse, about a mile away. However,
Dick had to risk it; he lay down so that only his face appeared above the
bank, and he shouted to the maiden. When he had caught her attention he
briefly explained the unusual situation. Then the young woman behaved
like a trump, or like a Highland Nausicaa, for students of the "Odyssey"
will remember how Odysseus, simply clad in a leafy bough of a tree, made
supplication to the sea-king's daughter, and how she befriended him. Even
if Dick had been a reader of Homer, which is not probable, there were no
trees within convenient reach, and he could not adopt the leafy covering
of Odysseus.

"You sit still; if you move an inch before I give you the word, I'll
leave you where you are!" said Miss Mary. She then cast her plaid over
her face, marched up to the bank where Dick was crouching and shivering,
dropped her ample plaid over him, and sped away towards the farmhouse.
When she had reached its shelter, and was giving an account of the
adventure, Dick set forth, like a primeval Highlander, the covering doing
duty both for plaid and kilt. Clothes of some kind were provided for him
at the cottage, a rickety old boat was fetched, and he and his stag were
rowed across the river to the place where his clothes lay.

That is all, but if one were a dealer in romance, much play might be made
with the future fortunes of the sportsman and the maiden, happy fortunes
or unhappy. In real life, the lassie "drew up with" a shepherd lad, as
Miss Jenny Denison has it, married him, and helped to populate the
strath. As for Dick, history tells no more of his adventures, nor is it
alleged that he ever again visited the distant valley, or beheld the face
of his Highland Nausicaa.

Now, if one were a romancer, this mere anecdote probably would "rest,
lovely pearl, in the brain, and slowly mature in the oyster," till it
became a novel. Properly handled, the incident would make a very
agreeable first chapter, with the aid of scenery, botany, climate, and
remarks on the manners and customs of the red deer stolen from St. John,
or the Stuarts d'Albanie. Then, probably, one would reflect on the
characters of Mary and of Richard; Mary must have parents, of course, and
one would make them talk in Scottish. Probably she already had a lover;
how should she behave to that lover? There is plenty of room for
speculation in that problem. As to Dick, is he to be a Lothario, or a
lover _pour le bon motif_? What are his distinguished family to think of
the love affair, which would certainly ensue in fiction, though in real
life nobody thought of it at all? Are we to end happily, with a marriage
or marriages, or are we to wind all up in the pleasant, pessimistic,
realistic, fashionable modern way? Is Mary to drown the baby in the
Muckle Pool? Is she to suffer the penalty of her crime at Inverness? Or,
happy thought, shall we not make her discarded rival lover meet Dick in
the hills on a sunny day and then--are they not (taking a hint from
facts) to fight a duel with rifles? I see Dick lying, with a bullet in
his brow, on the side of a corrie; his blood crimsons the snow, an eagle
stoops from the sky. That makes a pretty picturesque conclusion to the
unwritten romance of the strath.

Another anecdote occurs to me; good, I think, for a short story, but
capable, also, of being dumped down in the middle of a long novel. It
was in the old coaching days. A Border squire was going north, in the
coach, alone. At a village he was joined by a man and a young lady:
their purpose was manifest, they were a runaway couple, bound for Gretna
Green. They had not travelled long together before the young lady,
turning to the squire, said, "_Vous parlez francais, Monsieur_?" He did
speak French--it was plain that the bridegroom did not--and, to the end
of the journey, that remarkable lady conducted a lively and affectionate
conversation with the squire in French! Manifestly, he had only to ask
and receive, but, alas! he was an unadventurous, plain gentleman; he
alighted at his own village; he drove home in his own dogcart; the
fugitive pair went forward, and the Gretna blacksmith united them in holy
matrimony. The rest is silence.

I would give much to know what that young person's previous history and
adventures had been, to learn what befell her after her wedding, to
understand, in brief, her conduct and her motives. Were I a novelist, a
Maupassant, or a Meredith, the Muse, "from whatsoever quarter she chose,"
would enlighten me about all, and I would enlighten you. But I can only
marvel, only throw out the hint, only deposit the grain of sand, the
nucleus of romance, in some more fertile brain. Indeed the topic is much
more puzzling than the right conclusion for my Highland romance. In that
case fancy could find certain obvious channels, into one or other of
which it must flow. But I see no channels for the lives of these three
queerly met people in the coach.

As a rule, fancies are capable of being arranged in but a few familiar
patterns, so that it seems hardly worth while to make the arrangement.
But he who looks at things thus will never be a writer of stories. Nay,
even of the slowly unfolding tale of his own existence he may weary, for
the combinations therein have all occurred before; it is in a hackneyed
old story that he is living, and you, and I. Yet to act on this
knowledge is to make a bad affair of our little life: we must try our
best to take it seriously. And so of story-writing. As Mr. Stevenson
says, a man must view "his very trifling enterprise with a gravity that
would befit the cares of empire, and think the smallest improvement worth
accomplishing at any expense of time and industry. The book, the statue,
the sonata, must be gone upon with the unreasoning good faith and the
unflagging spirit of children at their play."

That is true, that is the worst of it. The man, the writer, over whom
the irresistible desire to mock at himself, his work, his puppets and
their fortunes has power, will never be a novelist. The novelist must
"make believe very much"; he must be in earnest with his characters. But
how to be in earnest, how to keep the note of disbelief and derision "out
of the memorial"? Ah, there is the difficulty, but it is a difficulty of
which many authors appear to be insensible. Perhaps they suffer from no
such temptations.




CHAPTER XV: THE SUPERNATURAL IN FICTION


It is a truism that the supernatural in fiction should, as a general
rule, be left in the vague. In the creepiest tale I ever read, the
horror lay in this--_there was no ghost_! You may describe a ghost with
all the most hideous features that fancy can suggest--saucer eyes, red
staring hair, a forked tail, and what you please--but the reader only
laughs. It is wiser to make as if you were going to describe the
spectre, and then break off, exclaiming, "But no! No pen can describe,
no memory, thank Heaven, can recall, the horror of that hour!" So
writers, as a rule, prefer to leave their terror (usually styled "The
Thing") entirely in the dark, and to the frightened fancy of the student.
Thus, on the whole, the treatment of the supernaturally terrible in
fiction is achieved in two ways, either by actual description, or by
adroit suggestion, the author saying, like cabmen, "I leave it to
yourself, sir." There are dangers in both methods; the description, if
attempted, is usually overdone and incredible: the suggestion is apt to
prepare us too anxiously for something that never becomes real, and to
leave us disappointed.

Examples of both methods may be selected from poetry and prose. The
examples in verse are rare enough; the first and best that occurs in the
way of suggestion is, of course, the mysterious lady in "Christabel."

"She was most beautiful to see,
Like a lady of a far countree."

Who was she? What did she want? Whence did she come? What was the
horror she revealed to the night in the bower of Christabel?

"Then drawing in her breath aloud
Like one that shuddered, she unbound
The cincture from beneath her breast.
Her silken robe and inner vest
Dropt to her feet, and full in view
Behold her bosom and half her side--
A sight to dream of, not to tell!
O shield her! shield sweet Christabel!"

And then what do her words mean?

"Thou knowest to-night, and wilt know to-morrow,
This mark of my shame, this seal of my sorrow."

What was it--the "sight to dream of, not to tell?"

Coleridge never did tell, and, though he and Mr. Gilman said he knew,
Wordsworth thought he did not know. He raised a spirit that he had not
the spell to lay. In the Paradise of Poets has he discovered the secret?
We only know that the mischief, whatever it may have been, was wrought.

"O sorrow and shame! Can this be she--
The lady who knelt at the old oak tree?"
. . .
"A star hath set, a star hath risen,
O Geraldine, since arms of thine
Have been the lovely lady's prison.
O Geraldine, one hour was thine." {11}

If Coleridge knew, why did he never tell? And yet he maintains that "in
the very first conception of the tale, I had the whole present to my
mind, with the wholeness no less than with the liveliness of a vision,"
and he expected to finish the three remaining parts within the year. The
year was 1816, the poem was begun in 1797, and finished, as far as it
goes, in 1800. If Coleridge ever knew what he meant, he had time to
forget. The chances are that his indolence, or his forgetfulness, was
the making of "Christabel," which remains a masterpiece of supernatural
suggestion.

For description it suffices to read the "Ancient Mariner." These
marvels, truly, are _speciosa miracula_, and, unlike Southey, we believe
as we read. "You have selected a passage fertile in unmeaning miracles,"
Lamb wrote to Southey (1798), "but have passed by fifty passages as
miraculous as the miracles they celebrate." Lamb appears to have been
almost alone in appreciating this masterpiece of supernatural
description. Coleridge himself shrank from his own wonders, and wanted
to call the piece "A Poet's Reverie." "It is as bad as Bottom the
weaver's declaration that he is not a lion, but only the scenical
representation of a lion. What new idea is gained by this title but one
subversive of all credit--which the tale should force upon us--of its
truth?" Lamb himself was forced, by the temper of the time, to declare
that he "disliked all the miraculous part of it," as if it were not _all_
miraculous! Wordsworth wanted the Mariner "to have a character and a
profession," perhaps would have liked him to be a gardener, or a butler,
with "an excellent character!" In fact, the love of the supernatural was
then at so low an ebb that a certain Mr. Marshall "went to sleep while
the 'Ancient Mariner' was reading," and the book was mainly bought by
seafaring men, deceived by the title, and supposing that the "Ancient
Mariner" was a nautical treatise.

In verse, then, Coleridge succeeds with the supernatural, both by way of
description in detail, and of suggestion. If you wish to see a failure,
try the ghost, the moral but not affable ghost, in Wordsworth's
"Laodamia." It is blasphemy to ask the question, but is the ghost in
"Hamlet" quite a success? Do we not see and hear a little too much of
him? Macbeth's airy and viewless dagger is really much more successful
by way of suggestion. The stage makes a ghost visible and familiar, and
this is one great danger of the supernatural in art. It is apt to insist
on being too conspicuous. Did the ghost of Darius, in "AEschylus,"
frighten the Athenians? Probably they smiled at the imperial spectre.
There is more discretion in Caesar's ghost--

"I think it is the weakness of mine eyes
That shapes this monstrous apparition,"

says Brutus, and he lays no very great stress on the brief visit of the
appearance. For want of this discretion, Alexandre Dumas's ghosts, as in
"The Corsican Brothers," are failures. They make themselves too common
and too cheap, like the spectre in Mrs. Oliphant's novel, "The Wizard's
Son." This, indeed, is the crux of the whole adventure. If you paint
your ghost with too heavy a hand, you raise laughter, not fear. If you
touch him too lightly, you raise unsatisfied curiosity, not fear. It may
be easy to shudder, but it is difficult to teach shuddering.

In prose, a good example of the over vague is Miriam's mysterious
visitor--the shadow of the catacombs--in "Transformation; or, The Marble
Faun." Hawthorne should have told us more or less; to be sure his
contemporaries knew what he meant, knew who Miriam and the Spectre were.
The dweller in the catacombs now powerfully excites curiosity, and when
that curiosity is unsatisfied, we feel aggrieved, vexed, and suspect that
Hawthorne himself was puzzled, and knew no more than his readers. He has
not--as in other tales he has--managed to throw the right atmosphere
about this being. He is vague in the wrong way, whereas George Sand, in
_Les Dames Vertes_, is vague in the right way. We are left in _Les Dames
Vertes_ with that kind of curiosity which persons really engaged in the
adventure might have felt, not with the irritation of having a secret
kept from us, as in "Transformation."

In "Wandering Willie's Tale" (in "Redgauntlet"), the right atmosphere is
found, the right note is struck. All is vividly real, and yet, if you
close the book, all melts into a dream again. Scott was almost equally
successful with a described horror in "The Tapestried Chamber." The idea
is the commonplace of haunted houses, the apparition is described as
minutely as a burglar might have been; and yet we do not mock, but
shudder as we read. Then, on the other side--the side of
anticipation--take the scene outside the closed door of the vanished Dr.
Jekyll, in Mr. Stevenson's well-known apologue:

They are waiting on the threshold of the chamber whence the doctor has
disappeared--the chamber tenanted by what? A voice comes from the room.
"Sir," said Poole, looking Mr. Utterson in the eyes, "was that my
master's voice?"

A friend, a man of affairs, and a person never accused of being fanciful,
told me that he read through the book to that point in a lonely Highland
chateau, at night, and that he did not think it well to finish the story
till next morning, but rushed to bed. So the passage seems "well-found"
and successful by dint of suggestion. On the other side, perhaps, only
Scotsmen brought up in country places, familiar from childhood with the
terrors of Cameronian myth, and from childhood apt to haunt the lonely
churchyards, never stirred since the year of the great Plague choked the
soil with the dead, perhaps _they_ only know how much shudder may be
found in Mr. Stevenson's "Thrawn Janet." The black smouldering heat in
the hills and glens that are commonly so fresh, the aspect of the Man,
the Tempter of the Brethren, we know them, and we have enough of the old
blood in us to be thrilled by that masterpiece of the described
supernatural. It may be only a local success, it may not much affect the
English reader, but it is of sure appeal to the lowland Scot. The
ancestral Covenanter within us awakens, and is terrified by his ancient
fears.

Perhaps it may die out in a positive age--this power of learning to
shudder. To us it descends from very long ago, from the far-off
forefathers who dreaded the dark, and who, half starved and all untaught,
saw spirits everywhere, and scarce discerned waking experience from
dreams. When we are all perfect positivist philosophers, when a thousand
generations of nurses that never heard of ghosts have educated the
thousand and first generation of children, then the supernatural may fade
out of fiction. But has it not grown and increased since Wordsworth
wanted the "Ancient Mariner" to have "a profession and a character,"
since Southey called that poem a Dutch piece of work, since Lamb had to
pretend to dislike its "miracles"? Why, as science becomes more cock-
sure, have men and women become more and more fond of old follies, and
more pleased with the stirring of ancient dread within their veins?

As the visible world is measured, mapped, tested, weighed, we seem to
hope more and more that a world of invisible romance may not be far from
us, or, at least, we care more and more to follow fancy into these airy
regions, _et inania regna_. The supernatural has not ceased to tempt
romancers, like Alexandre Dumas, usually to their destruction; more
rarely, as in Mrs. Oliphant's "Beleaguered City," to such success as they
do not find in the world of daily occupation. The ordinary shilling
tales of "hypnotism" and mesmerism are vulgar trash enough, and yet I can
believe that an impossible romance, if the right man wrote it in the
right mood, might still win us from the newspapers, and the stories of
shabby love, and cheap remorses, and commonplace failures.

"But it needs Heaven-sent moments for this skill."




CHAPTER XVI: AN OLD SCOTTISH PSYCHICAL RESEARCHER


ADVERTISEMENT

"If any Gentlemen, and others, will be pleased to send me any
relations about Spirits, Witches, and Apparitions, In any part of the
Kingdom; or any Information about the Second Sight, Charms, Spells,
Magic, and the like, They shall oblige the Author, and have them
publisht to their satisfaction.

"Direct your Relations to Alexander Ogstouns, Shop Stationer, at the
foot of the Plain-stones, at Edinburgh, on the North-side of the
Street."

Is this not a pleasing opportunity for Gentlemen, and Others, whose Aunts
have beheld wraiths, doubles, and fetches? It answers very closely to
the requests of the Society for Psychical Research, who publish, as some
one disparagingly says, "the dreams of the middle classes." Thanks to
Freedom, Progress, and the decline of Superstition, it is now quite safe
to see apparitions, and even to publish the narrative of their
appearance.

But when Mr. George Sinclair, sometime Professor of Philosophy in
Glasgow, issued the invitation which I have copied, at the end of his
"Satan's Invisible World Discovered," {12} the vocation of a seer was not
so secure from harm. He, or she, might just as probably be burned as
not, on the charge of sorcery, in the year of grace, 1685. However,
Professor Sinclair managed to rake together an odd enough set of legends,
"proving clearly that there are Devils," a desirable matter to have
certainty about. "Satan's Invisible World Discovered" is a very rare
little book; I think Scott says in a MS. note that he had great
difficulty in procuring it, when he was at work on his "infernal
demonology." As a copy fell in my way, or rather as I fell in its way, a
helpless victim to its charms and its blue morocco binding, I take this
chance of telling again the old tales of 1685.

Mr. Sinclair began with a long dedicatory Epistle about nothing at all,
to the Lord Winton of the period. The Earl dug coal-mines, and
constructed "a moliminous rampier for a harbour." A "moliminous rampier"
is a choice phrase, and may be envied by novelists who aim at distinction
of style. "Your defending the salt pans against the imperious waves of
the raging sea from the NE. is singular," adds the Professor, addressing
"the greatest coal and salt-master in Scotland, who is a nobleman, and
the greatest nobleman who is a Coal and Salt Merchant." Perhaps it is
already plain to the modern mind that Mr. George Sinclair, though a
Professor of Philosophy, was not a very sagacious character.

Mr. Sinclair professes that his proofs of the existence of Devils "are no
old wife's trattles about the fire, but such as may bide the test." He
lived, one should remember, in an age when faith was really seeking aid
from ghost stories. Glanvil's books--and, in America, those of Cotton
Mather--show the hospitality to anecdotes of an edifying sort, which we
admire in Mr. Sinclair. Indeed, Sinclair borrows from Glanvil and Henry
More, authors who, like himself, wished to establish the existence of the
supernatural on the strange incidents which still perplex us, but which
are scarcely regarded as safe matter to argue upon. The testimony for a
Ghost would seldom go to a jury in our days, though amply sufficient in
the time of Mr. Sinclair. About "The Devil of Glenluce" he took
particular care to be well informed, and first gave it to the world in a
volume on--you will never guess what subject--Hydrostatics! In the
present work he offers us

"The Devil of Glenluce Enlarged
With several Remarkable Additions
from an Eye and Ear Witness,
A Person of undoubted
Honesty."

Mr. Sinclair recommends its "usefulness for refuting Atheism." Probably
Mr. Sinclair got the story, or had it put off on him rather, through one
Campbell, a student of philosophy in Glasgow, the son of Gilbert
Campbell, a weaver of Glenluce, in Galloway; the scene in our own time,
of a mysterious murder. Campbell had refused alms to Alexander Agnew, a
bold and sturdy beggar, who, when asked by the Judge whether he believed
in a God, answered: "He knew no God but Salt, Meal, and Water." In
consequence of the refusal of alms, "The Stirs first began." The "Stirs"
are ghostly disturbances. They commenced with whistling in the house and
out of it, "such as children use to make with their small, slender glass
whistles." "About the Middle of November," says Mr. Sinclair, "the Foul
Fiend came on with his extraordinary assaults." Observe that he takes
the Foul Fiend entirely for granted, and that he never tells us the date
of the original quarrel, and the early agitation. Stones were thrown
down the chimney and in at the windows, but nobody was hurt.

Naturally Gilbert Campbell carried his tale of sorrow to the parish
Minister. This did not avail him. His warp and threads were cut on his
loom, and even the clothes of his family were cut while they were wearing
them. At night something tugged the blankets off their beds, a favourite
old spiritual trick, which was played, if I remember well, on a Roman
Emperor, according to Suetonius. Poor Campbell had to remove his stock-
in-trade, and send his children to board out, "to try whom the trouble
did most follow." After this, all was quiet (as perhaps might be
expected), and quiet all remained, till a son named Thomas was brought
home again. Then the house was twice set on fire, and it might have been
enough to give Thomas a beating. On the other hand, Campbell sent Thomas
to stay with the Minister. But the troubles continued in the old way. At
last the family became so accustomed to the Devil, "that they were no
more afraid to keep up the Clash" (chatter) "with the Foul Fiend than to
speak to each other." They were like the Wesleys, who were so familiar
with the fiend Jeffrey, that haunted their home.

The Minister, with a few of the gentry, heard of their unholy friendship,
and paid Campbell a visit. "At their first coming in the Devil says:
'_Quum Literarum_ is good Latin.'" These are the first words of the
Latin rudiments which scholars are taught when they go to the Grammar
School. Then they all prayed, and a Voice came from under the bed:
"Would you know the Witches of Glenluce?" The Voice named a few,
including one long dead. But the Minister, with rare good sense,
remarked that what Satan said was not evidence.

Let it be remarked that "the lad Tom" had that very day "come back with
the Minister." The Fiend then offered terms. "Give me a spade and
shovel, and depart from the house for seven days, and I will make a
grave, and lie down in it, and trouble you no more." Hereon Campbell,
with Scottish caution, declined to give the Devil the value of a straw.
The visitors then hunted after the voice, observing that some of the
children were in bed. They found nothing, and then, as the novelists
say, "a strange thing happened."